On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 09:44 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > My take on this is that we are stuck with the status quo. If a
> change
> > must be done, the 'is null' change should be reverted to un-standard
> > behavior. The SQL standard position on this issue is, IMNSHO, on
> > mars.
>
> As someone who's wanted this... what if we had a dedicated function to
> tell you if a row variable had been defined? I definitely don't like
> the though of creating something that effectively duplicates IS NULL,
> but I'd much rather that than continue not having the ability to tell
> if a row/record variable has been set or not.
If we just invent a couple more variants of NULL, it will solve all our
problems ;)
Seriously though, I think that we should stick as closely to the letter
of the standard as possible here (or, if there is ambiguity, pick one
reasonable interpretation). NULL semantics are confusing enough without
everyone making their own subtle tweaks.
Regards,Jeff Davis